Prop. 37: Voters to decide GMO labeling issue

The question of whether label-readers will be able to tell at a glance if the food they buy contains genetically engineered ingredients will go before voters on the Nov. 6 ballot.

The contentious Proposition 37 would require food manufacturers to label raw or processed food that is made from genetically engineered plants or animals.

"I don't think I've seen one lawn sign saying, No on 37,'" said local organizer Susan Sher, who is part of a local campaign to support the proposition. "I think when people understand what it means they will be enthusiastically voting yes."

Her perception that the proposition is largely supported locally is in keeping with Mendocino County's local ordinance passed in 2004 to prohibit genetically engineered crops (commonly called GMO or GE crops) from being grown within the county's borders.

Even so, Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner Chuck Morse says he hasn't heard any feedback on the issue from local growers.

"I have not fielded one call," he said.

Morse notes that the crops that most commonly use GMOs and end up as ingredients in processed foods ? corn, wheat, sugar beets, soybeans and cotton oil ? aren't Mendocino County's major producer crops. He said since 2008, there has only been one reported complaint about locally-grown GMOs, but the county could not substantiate that the crop in question was a GMO crop.

Mendocino County Farm Bureau CEO Devon Jones said while the local bureau hasn't taken a position on Prop. 37, the California Farm Bureau opposes it.

The CFBF describes the proposition as "a poorly written measure with serious implications for family farmers and ranchers," and criticizes it because it would require "a special, California-only label," would prohibit most processed foods from being labeled "natural" and "would be enforced for the most part by private attorneys suing alleged violators," according to the CFBF website, www.cfbf.com.

Some have said the debate pits organic farmers against large food producers that contribute to the No on 37 campaign, including Kraft, Kellogg, General Mills and the Campbell Soup Company, among others.

The No on 37 campaign is headquartered in Sacramento and has major funding from the Monsanto Company ? a large producer of genetically modified seed, among other products -- E.I. DuPont de Numours & Co. and Grocery Manufacturers Association.

"Genetic engineering of plants and animals often causes unintended consequences," according to the proposed law's findings and declarations.

"Labeling is just the tip of the iceberg," Sher said. Echoing the Yes on 37 campaign, she noted that while the federal government hasn't declared GMOs unsafe, lab testing on animals has identified health problems.

"This is not to say that you should or shouldn't eat GMOs," Sher said, but knowing what's in the food we buy is "just a basic right."

If voters pass Prop. 37, it would require labeling on packaged food, and signs posted for produce and other food that isn't packaged.

The No on 37 campaign claims the labeling is unnecessary and arbitrary, because beef, dairy, eggs and alcohol would be exempt, while proponents say livestock feed is likely to include GE corn. No on 37 also claims the measure would raise the average family's annual grocery cost by $400 ? a claim Sher says hasn't been substantiated.

The state Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that the measure, if it passes, will cost the state between a few hundred thousand dollars to more than $1 million annually to regulate labeling, review documents and do periodic inspections.

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, on Twitter @TiffanyRevelle or at 468-3523.